Posted on 03/05/2006 10:14:03 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Five decades after it was revealed as a forgery, the Piltdown man still haunts paleoanthropology. Now, thanks to the disgraced stem cell researcher Woo Suk Hwang, cell biology has a high-profile scandal of its own to live down. Few recent papers in biology have soared as high in acclaim as Hwang's 2004 and 2005 announcements of cloning human embryonic stem cells -- or plummeted as fast into infamy with the discovery that they were rank fakes.
Embryonic stem cell (ESC) research is no less promising today than it was before Hwang's deceit was revealed; most investigators continue to believe that it will eventually yield revolutionary medical treatments. That no one has yet derived ESCs from cloned human embryos simply means that the science is less advanced than has been supposed over the past two years.
Still, Hwang has badly sullied the reputation of a field that already has more than its share of political and public relations problems. Some longtime opponents of ESC research will undoubtedly argue that Hwang's lies only prove that the investigators cannot be trusted to conduct their work ethically, and the public may believe them. This is one more crime against science for which Hwang should be ashamed. (A minor footnote to this affair is our removal of Hwang from the 2005 Scientific American 50 list; see the retraction on page 16.)
In recent years, fabricated data and other fakery have been uncovered in work on materials, immunology, breast cancer, brain aneurysms, the discovery of new elements and other subjects. As the volume of publication rises, fraud will probably rise with it. Because of the growing financial ties between university researchers and corporations, not to mention the jockeying for leadership among nations in high-stakes areas such as stem cells, some scientists may feel more pressure to deliver results quickly -- even if they have to make them up.
These affairs have something in common with the Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass scandals that not long ago rocked mainstream journalism: all these scams exploited the trust that editors extend to submitting authors. The editors and peer reviewers of scientific journals cannot always verify that a submitted paper's results are true and honest; rather their main job is to check whether a paper's methodology is sound, its reasoning cogent and its conclusions noteworthy. Disconfirmation can only follow publication. In that sense, the Hwang case shows how science's self-correcting mechanism is supposed to work.
Yet it is important not to brush off the Hwang case as a fluke without considering its lessons for the future. For instance, Hwang's papers had many co-authors, few of whom seem to have been party to the cover-ups. But what responsibilities should co-authors have for making sure that papers bearing their names are at the least honest?
We should also think hard about whether Hwang's deceit went undetected for months because so many scientists and science journalists wanted to believe that ESC research was progressing rapidly, because that would hasten the arrival of miraculous therapies and other biomedical wonders. Extraordinary results need to be held suspect until confirmed independently. Hwang is guilty of raising false expectations, but too many of us held the ladder for him.
"In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Con Men in Lab Coats [how science corrects itself], CarolinaGuitarman whined:"
I was simply pointing out a fact; your interjection had nothing to do with what was being discussed, as usual. The links that I was referring to someone else had nothing to do with fossil sequences, yet you felt it necessary to imagine they were. You post junk without any concern for what the person you are posting to is talking about. You are indeed a snore.
"Indeed you have.....
And 'science' over the Bible, as well."
I'll trust the physical evidence over any book, any time.
Now go bother someone else with your drivel.
|
"Rebuilding my about page after SOMEBODY came along and deleted it...". 449 posted on 03/06/2006 11:20:24 AM CST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
To: dread78645
Found it on Google too. Crisis averted! |
But, was he PROHIBITTED from reposting it HIMSELF????
He restored it and was subsequently banned. I can't say for sure there was a connection, but, nonetheless, it's an interesting coincidence.
It's a GIVEN now; now that Jay Bennish has been exposed, INJECTING leftist politics and rhetoric into a GEOGRAPHY class, in Aroura, CO.
He was just on the Today Show, and Smilin' Matt had no condemnation for him. "Teach the Controvercy" was the thought for the interview, and Jay and Matt agreed that both sides are GOOD to 'expand' the teens tight, little closed minds!
Now on E-bay, James Fennimore Cooper's long lost manuscript for...
Bidding starts at $2,500
It's those that are only 43% out-of-context that really baffle me!
Prokaryote indeed!!
I've heard them sing, so now I am exTREMELY ANTI-karyoke!
If there is even a single mutation not inherited from your parents, you are participating in evolution. The chances are slim that you are error free.
Finally, I must admit.....
Evolution is TRUE!!!
NIV John 3:3-7
3. In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. "
4. "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5. Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
6. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
7. You should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.'
Cool!!
I just saw a coyote in suburban INDIANAPOLIS last NIGHT!
No Big Cats seen as yet, but there are urban legends of SOMETHING large and feline in Southern Indiana.
I don't know about the flavor of mountain lions, but I would NEVER eat a clown!!
I hear they taste FUNNY!
Heehee....
My old one still works; though it IS evolving: getting rounder!
Must be true, for my old dog was constantly tasting himself!
Not if Evolution is true.....
So, wouldit's offspring be a MINI-meme??
But, as usual, you have NO complaints about the 'context' of MOST of the last 100 posts!
You are bother by my postings?
Oh my....
I just HATE it when the Mods have that power, and do NOT have to explain their reasoning!
Interactions with tallhappy go like this. You post something. He contradicts you, usually without any substantive argument, and say you don't know anything about the subject. You point out that in fact the overseers of a not-completely unknown institution thought you knew enough to grant you a Ph.D. in the subject. You ask, in turn, what his credentials are. Chirp chirp chirp. You post a great deal of data rebutting his naysaying. Chirp chirp chirp. Then he goes off on another thread, smears you, and (of course) proves your already low opinion of you by not being Mensch enough to ping you to his libel.
Actually, you are describing your MO. Above is an example. You simply want to talk about your greatness and rag on me. You actualy do what you are saying, not me.
Perfesser, you are a laughingstock because you are dour and pompous with no joie de vivre and especially with no understanding of what you seem to believe most and hold dearest to your heart.
And seldom if ever do you ever talk about science except in incredibly general and trivial ways. You talk more about how stupid creationists or IDers are than you ever talk about actual science.
Stop being such a sad sack. Cheer up. A merit award awaits you, I'm sure of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.